Water Cannon

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today placed in the Library guidance developed by the Association of Chief Police Officers on the deployment and use of water cannon, together with a medical statement by the independent medical panel on the use of water cannon. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
	With the publication of this guidance and the final medical statement, the water cannon purchased by the Police Service of Northern Ireland can now be deployed operationally for use in appropriate circumstances.

School Teachers' Review Body

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. Introduction 
	The second part of the 13th report of the School Teachers' Review Body is being published today. It covers all matters related to the rewards and incentives agreement and a range of residual matters not covered in the first part published in November 2003. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House of Lords and at http://www.teachernet. gov.uk/management/payandperformance/pay/2004/STRBreportMarch2004/
	In making its recommendations, the review body was required to have regard to the matters set out in the remit letters of 1 August 2002, 11 July 2003 and 9 January 2004. The STRB report deals with a wide range of weighty and complex issues and I particularly want to thank the body for the exemplary way it has responded to the additional remit on issues related to the upper pay scale. I remain indebted to both the review body and the other partners for the continued dedication and professionalism that they bring to this process. The STRB recommendations are set out below followed in each case by my response.
	I am seeking consultation comments on the report and my response by 16 April 2004. Upper Pay Scale The STRB has recommended the following (in bold):
	The content of Annexes A and B need to be reflected in pay legislation;
	Annexes A and B are further clarified, strengthened and communicated in the way set out above;
	The upper pay scale should now cease at UPS3;
	(a) that a new excellent teacher scheme is established;
	(b) that the scheme should be open only to classroom teachers who have reached UPS3 and who demonstrate that they have distinguished themselves at that level;
	(c) that the period before a UPS3 teacher becomes eligible to attain the status of an excellent teacher should normally be three years and that the first awards under the scheme should be made in September 2007;
	(d) that the scheme as developed should take into account the following considerations:
	it should include a process for application and assessment as rigorous as the AST process, using the same concepts of national criteria and a national assessment model;
	it should include an element of external assessment;
	the criteria should ensure that only the very best teachers can achieve the new status provided by the scheme and should include a programme of study leading to an appropriate qualification;
	the salary should reflect the quality of improvement in teaching and learning intended to result from the scheme.
	I welcome the positive and helpful way the STRB has responded to the issues around the upper pay scale. The depth of its response indicates the seriousness with which it undertook this additional remit and I am grateful for this thoroughness.
	The rewards and incentives agreement I signed with our pay partners on 9 January affirmed two important principles. The first was that good classroom teachers should be able to aspire to a salary which reflects their important achievements in raising standards. The second was that the highest rewards for classroom teachers should be awarded for excellence.
	I am particularly pleased that, through its recommendations that the upper pay scale should cease at UPS3 and that a new excellent teacher scheme be established the STRB too recognises the importance of these principles. I therefore endorse these two proposals.
	The STRB has made further recommendations concerning amplifying and clarifying the criteria for progression on the upper pay scale and putting them in the pay document; and further defining the detail of an excellent teacher scheme. I would welcome comments from all statutory consultees on these additional proposals.
	Main pay scale and threshold assessment The STRB recommends the following (in bold):
	(a) on the basis of a teacher's performance and professional development over the past year the head teacher should decide and record in writing whether or not he or she has achieved at least the standard required to merit an increment on the main scale;
	(b) where performance is judged to be outstanding and continues at that level for two years it should merit a double increment;
	(c) where performance falls below the standard required, the increment should be deferred and an improvement plan should be put in place, with the appropriate support. The decision to defer should be reviewed in mid-year after which the increment would be backdated to the previous September, provided that the necessary progress had been made. A continuing unsatisfactory performance would result in the withholding of the increment.
	During discussions on ways of ensuring appropriate rigour in performance management and related pay decisions, the parties give careful consideration to the development of a common system, building on the practices which already exist and taking into account the model employed in certain schools.
	I am pleased that the STRB shares my strong belief that, "a rigorous performance management system, robustly applied by school leaders should be the hub of all progression". I further share its concerns that heads have difficulty distinguishing between the performance of individual teachers and agree that a more explicit linkage between performance, professional development and progression might go some way to address this issue. These STRB recommendations are a helpful step forward and I propose to press ahead with proposals to ensure that progression on the main pay scale is treated in this way from September 2005.
	I too believe that these decisions about pay progression can best be made within a consistent framework for performance management in schools. Part of the rationale for my proposal, put forward jointly with the co-signatories to the rewards and incentives agreement, was the need to encourage fair and objective decisions on pay progression. I therefore also endorse the STRB's recommendation to consider carefully with parties the need to develop a common system.
	Threshold Assessment The STRB recommends the following (in bold):
	That, over the next 18 months:
	(a) the department and, where appropriate, the Welsh Assembly Government take action to ensure that:
	a. all heads have received appropriate training on linking pay and performance; and
	b. a satisfactory appeal route for disputes over pay decisions, which includes an independent element,
	(b) the department and, where appropriate, the Welsh Assembly Government work with the statutory consultees:
	a. to maintain existing standards of decision-making on threshold applications; and
	b. to establish a quality assurance system as envisaged in paragraph 12 of the joint proposal.
	From September 2005, threshold assessments are made at school level in the context of the school's developed performance management system; and external validation of the threshold assessment decisions of the teacher is discontinued.
	The STRB has made a number of strong recommendations about the future of threshold assessment arrangements which I accept in principle. I note the STRB cites evidence from the PwC study which shows that threshold assessment has largely bedded in and the important role external assessment is likely to have played in that process. I welcome the statement that subject to improvements to the performance management system and the maintenance of threshold standards, the body sees "no absolute need to retain the external assessment system".
	I too am keen to ensure that we continue to maintain appropriate mechanisms for ensuring continued fairness and equity in threshold decisions and I am grateful for the review body's suggestions for securing that this is the case. As recommended by the STRB, I propose to consult on the arrangements for the light-touch validation of performance management systems and the best way to maintain threshold standards. As teacher appraisal is devolved, proposals regarding performance management systems in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government. On the narrow issue of the timing of the ending of the current threshold assessment scheme, I can see considerable gains—including significant financial savings—with maintaining the end date of August 2004, but would welcome views from all statutory consultees.
	I am pleased to endorse the STRB recommendation that heads should be trained on linking pay to performance. Work is already in hand to expand the existing range of flexible training materials for head teachers and governors to include a further element focusing on the links between performance and pay decisions. The recommendations of the review body are helpful to the development of this package which we hope to progress with the help of the other pay partners.
	Local Approaches to Pay The STRB has recommended the following (in bold):
	The parties consider the proposal we have described and present us with their evidence and views by September 2004.
	I welcome the rigorous and methodical way the STRB has approached the issues around local and regional pay. It has clearly set out a range of difficult issues which need to be looked at when considering how best one should tackle any residual barriers to recruitment and retention that may still exist within our current pay system of geographical banding. While noting the importance of each school tackling any other barriers to their success—including clear leadership and management structures, appropriate and available CPD and other measures designed to promote a positive environment for staff—it has offered interesting proposals for resolving many of those hard core recruitment and retention issues which might remain.
	I welcome the STRB's recommendation to consult with other parties on this proposal and provide evidence from the department by September.
	Additionally, I am clear that the implications of this proposal will need to be considered alongside recommendations forthcoming from the Adrian Smith review on mathematics post-14 where, here too, there were interesting proposals about how to tackle subject recruitment difficulties in specific schools and areas.
	Teachers' Pay system and career structure The STRB has recommended the following (in bold):
	The AST spine is reduced to 18 points with values parallel to points 1 to 18 of the leadership group spine not later than September 2006.
	Clear record is made of their annual review and subsequent decision on salary progression.
	I welcome the STRB's recognition of the importance and distinctiveness of the AST role, "in leading excellent curriculum and teaching practice in schools and institutions beyond their own school". I agree that we must ensure that they are afforded the necessary status within the school structure as befits the very important role they play in so many schools. Therefore I endorse the recommendation to reduce the AST spine to 18 points with values equivalent to the first 18 points of the leadership group spine.
	Furthermore I believe, all teachers, irrespective of their role, should expect to have clear records from their annual review which would set out, among other important issues such as objectives and professional development needs, any decisions made about salary progression. I therefore also endorse the STRB's proposals that ASTs be entitled to a clear record of their annual review and any subsequent pay decision.
	I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of the issues regarding chartered London teacher status and I propose that an appropriate amendment is made to the STPCD in September 2004 to cover this.
	Special Pay arrangements The STRB has recommended the following (in bold):
	LEAs review their procedures during 2004 to ensure that unattached teachers are not at a disadvantage compared to attached teachers, and the national employers' organisation oversees the review and published the results so that they are available to the other parties.
	The department sets up a comprehensive database on unattached teachers, covering numbers, location and roles.
	The department draws up guidance, in consultation with the interested parties, including BATOD, on how the payment of SEN allowance 2 might take account of the enhancement of the teaching of SEN children brought about by such specialist qualifications.
	The safeguarding of the social priority allowance and the inner London area supplement is removed with effect from 1 September 2004.
	The department considers the following navigation aids when revising the document:
	Adding a comprehensive index, with cross-references to other useful linked documents such as explanatory notes for heads, governors and LEAs and model school teachers' pay policy;
	Including a 3–4 page summary at the beginning describing the teachers' career options and pay system using diagrams; and
	Consulting on areas for pay simplification, including the balance between guidance and formal provisions.
	We also recommend the provision of more training for governors in the understanding of the teachers' pay system, the navigation around the document and its use in considering the school pay policy.
	I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of a range of further issues around the smooth and appropriate operation of the structures of the teachers pay system.
	The STRB is right to draw our attention to concerns about the position of unattached teachers. I too think it is important for all teachers, whether they are attached to a school or not, to be treated fairly and equitably and I welcome the recommendations.
	I support the idea of a review of LEA procedures related to unattached teachers and I look to NEOST to take this forward as it sees fit. On the further recommendation about the establishment of a comprehensive database on unattached teachers, it would not be practicable, for a number of reasons, to seek to develop a new database at this point. The best mechanism for delivering this will be through the adult common basic data set, which, from 2006, I anticipate being the key and most comprehensive source for information about the school workforce, including unattached teachers. I therefore accept this recommendation in the context of the developments on the adult common basic data set.
	I am content to discuss with relevant parties how the Payment of SEN allowance 2 might take into account the enhancement of the teaching of SEN children brought about by specialist qualifications. The outcome of this exercise should be without prejudice to consideration of the wider allowance framework.
	I appreciate the attention given by the STRB to the matter of safeguarding, particularly its exposition of the balance needed between the need to protect teachers salary and the potentially inhibitory effect safeguarding can have on necessary and desirable changes in school organisation. The body reminds us that its thinking on both management allowances and recruitment and retention allowances in part one to this report took into account its desire to avoid long-term payments of increasing value for purposes which might no longer apply. I welcome the recognition that paragraph 48 to the STPCD contains sufficient flexibility to render the need to offer separate specific payments for both social priority allowance and the inner London area supplement unnecessary. I hope this will be a welcome flexibility and simplification for schools. I am also grateful for the body's steer on the issues it believes should be discussed in our conversations with key parties on the issue of safeguarding. I am minded therefore to press ahead with the abolition of safeguarding for both the social priority allowance and the inner London area supplement from September 2004.
	I also welcome the STRB's further comments on simplification of the existing pay system through looking at how we might better position the content of the document to make it accessible to the range of audiences that are required to use it. This is a something of an iterative process for us but one which it is important that we press on with, a key part of which is making the pay system itself more streamlined. I therefore accept the STRB's recommendations around simplifying the document including the further need to consult on more substantive simplification of the pay systems. I wholeheartedly endorse the need to ensure governors are clear on the operation of the pay system and the flexibilities within it. As I have already mentioned, work has already begun on devising a toolkit for trainers on teachers' pay and pay policies, I propose that this training be disseminated to governors and head teachers together.

Universities

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing the results of the consultation on proposed new criteria for degree awarding powers and university title, which ended on 12 December 2003. The consultation followed a commitment in the White Paper The Future of Higher Education to modernise the criteria governing the granting of degree awarding powers (DAP) and to allow university title (UT) to be granted on the basis of taught DAP and student numbers.
	There were mixed views on the proposal to allow teaching-focused universities, with universities generally opposed and other higher education institutions (HEIs) in support. Most respondents felt the proposed criteria for taught DAP were clearer than the current criteria and strengthen the requirements staff have to meet. Most universities supported retaining the current student number criterion for UT with other HEIs divided on whether the level should be maintained or lowered. More respondents than not were in favour of allowing specialist institutions to be eligible for UT.
	The proposal for DAP in future to be granted for six-year terms, renewable subject to a satisfactory audit, was opposed by most respondents. Two-thirds of universities and virtually all other HEIs expressing an opinion were against the proposal. The Standing Committee of Principals cited legal difficulties with the proposed changes. In light of these concerns, we will issue a discussion paper on renewable DAP shortly. We want to balance the concerns expressed with the Government's desire to ensure that the quality and reputation of higher education in England and Wales is maintained. The moratorium on new applications for degree awarding powers will remain in place while this matter is discussed further with the higher education sector and others. In the mean time, the moratorium on new applications for university title under the current criteria is lifted.
	The consultation report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on the Department for Education and Skills website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conResults.cfm?consultationId=1226

Consolidated Fund Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made a statement under Section 17(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in my view, the provisions of the Consolidated Fund Bill are compatible with the convention rights. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

Patent Office: Performance Targets 2004–05

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have tasked the Patent Office with broadening its activities to support the delivery of the Government's innovation strategy. During the coming year, the Patent Office will develop these new activities and form partnerships through which new services will be delivered.
	I have also set the Patent Office the following targets for 2004–05:
	Patents
	1. To be issuing 90 per cent of search reports within five months of request by the end of the year.
	2. Grant 90 per cent of patents within three years of request.
	Designs
	3. Register 90 per cent of correctly filed design applications, to which no substantive objections have been raised, within three months of the date of application.
	Trade Marks
	4. Register 90 per cent of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within eight months of application.
	5. Reduce to an average of 26 weeks the time taken to issue a decision in trade mark inter partes cases once the case is ready.
	6. Ensure that the proportion of bad acceptances published in the Trade Marks Journal is less than 1 per cent.
	Policy
	7. Establish a baseline and metrics for IP awareness and a target for 2005–06.
	Efficiency Targets
	8. Increase output in relation to current expenditure by an average of at least 2 per cent per annum over a rolling three-year period.
	In addition to these key targets:
	Customer Service Standards
	Meet our customer service standards as shown in the annual report and on our website at www.patent.gov.uk
	Finance
	Pay 100 per cent of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later
	Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
	Reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated for the chief executive's reply.